Throughout the six thousand years of recorded human government, there have been countless millions of lies told by public figures large and small. Some never get discovered and the lie passes down through history as recorded truth; others get discovered only too late, like Hitler's famous Big Lies which were very convincing until after he'd dragged all of Europe down into a Holocaust of destruction.
Rare indeed, though, is the lie which is both of the mammoth society-destroying type and which has reached the level of Received Wisdom throughout an entire elite leadership structure, and then which suddenly and very publicly is revealed to all as the fraud it is, before extremes of destruction are reached. In fact, on reflecting through history, I can't think of an example.
Until last month, when the lies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were revealed to the world by an anonymous hacker. Not since Aladdin has a thief saved his country; and this data thief may actually save the world from the proverbial fate worse than death. For the stolen data, now posted on public whistle-blowing websites throughout the Internet, reveals all the truths that climate-change "deniers" have been shouting upon deaf ears.
Why has nobody other than the IPCC been able to see the actual raw data collected by researchers which supposedly proves global warming is taking place? Simple: IPCC officials at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit destroyed the underlying numbers after they'd created their alarmist graphs, so that no skeptics could identify any methodological or mathematical errors they might have made. Since the work was funded by the governments of England and the United States, destruction of the data is destruction of government property, a criminal act which can and should be prosecuted.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. [emphasis added]
Yeah, adding in fudge factors is definitely one way to make the numbers show whatever you'd like them to.
What about the very serious point global warming alarmists make against deniers, that denying scientists can't get their research published in respected scientific journals because it isn't very good, unlike the alarmists whose views burst from the pages of the most august tomes? Gordon Crovitz explains:
The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, now faces the inconvenient truth that it relied on scientists who violated scientific process. In one email, the Climate Research Unit's director, Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the relationship between human activity and global warming. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he said. He pledged to "keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that - take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." [emphasis added]
In other words, these scientists whom most viewed as the world's leading climatologists decided that any journal which published scientific articles that didn't agree with them no longer counted as a scientific journal, and that no "respectable" scientist would ever be published in the sort of pulp rag which would ever consider publishing non-alarmist research. Shades of Barack Obama saying that Fox News is not a legitimate news channel because it criticizes his political programs! As the Wall Street Journal (Europe) reported:
The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited-in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.
Oh, and what of those much-vaunted computer software models showing the world warming, the icecaps melting, and the world ending? The leaker kindly included the computer code used by the IPCC for its modeling, in which we find this interesting snippet:
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
Yes, that's right: the computer code was designed to create a warming trend no matter what data was put into it. You could make up your own numbers showing the exact same recorded temperatures each and every year for the last thousand years... and the "model" would still spit out an Al-Gore-style hockey-stick warming graph.
This is not science; this is not data; this is not research. It is fraud, nothing more, nothing less - transparent, obvious fraud.
Let's sum up: we now have ironclad proof that a) there is no data proving global warming even exists, b) the IPCC scientists knew that the data didn't support their views and created dummy results to get the answer they wanted, and c) they used their undeserved respect in the scientific community to suppress any research which contradicted them, regardless of its scientific merit.
This is the "scientific consensus" that wants to force the rich world into paying countless trillions of dollars, countless millions of lost jobs, unimaginable loss of modern comforts... to solve a problem that can be "proven" to exist only by the use of forgeries, fraud, and lies!
Now, there is no shortage of true believers in global warming even in the face of this awe-inspiring scandal. They do have a point: just because there is no evidence of global warming doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't happening.
It's also true that just because UFOlogists have entirely failed to produce ET, it doesn't necessarily mean that extraterrestrial aliens aren't among us. After all, how can you absolutely prove a negative?
But until the alien-abduction brigade can bring a crashed flying saucer, decaying alien corpse, or working ray-gun to a press conference for all to see, we aren't going to reorganize our entire global economy to meet the impending threat of an invasion from Mars.
Just because a bunch of noisy, self-interested academics and politicians say that we're destroying the world does not mean that we should give up everything that modern technology has given us without abundant proof. For years now, Al Gore has been pointing to his fellow Nobel-prize winners, the IPC, as the last word in scientific proof. Today those selfsame "authorities" stand revealed instead as charlatans of no more scientific standing than Doctor Cure-all and his Magic Elixir.
Spending fifty cents on a fancy bottle of soda water "guaranteed to cure all ills" is one thing. Spending more than our entire national economy on chasing an ephemera... well, that's the sort of malfeasance of which impeachment charges are made. Before this scandal broke, a majority of Americans wanted no part of the "cap-and-trade" bill. And now?
Well, the mainstream American media, predictably enough, have totally ignored the entire scandal. There is, however, that small phenomenon of which they may not be aware, and for which they can thank none other than His Greenness Al Gore. Yes, that's right: a surprising number of Americans are now using the Internet, and are finding that the newspapers of England are as engaged by the Climategate scandal as ours are ignorant of it.
The results are quite amusing. The American MSM merrily sails on, rolling out the same stock "sky is falling" climate change articles they have for years... then, in the online comments, ordinary Americans tear them apart for their lies, as with this example from the Washington Post.
If the common man needed more proof that normal news organs are intentionally hiding front-page events, this is it. Last week my family went to dinner at a local pizza joint, and I took the opportunity to bring them up-to-date regarding Climategate. From the next table over came a cry from one diner to their partner on overhearing my remarks, "See, I told you it was true - there's somebody else talking about it right over there!"
Throughout the country and the world, the same thing is happening - on the subway, in restaurants, in the office - as the truth is passed from one to another, with proof supplied instantly online, despite even the best efforts of Google.
For the Left, here be dragons. Getting truth directly from the Internet is habit-forming... just in time for elections in England, the United States, and perhaps Australia.
Over the past five years, the editors have been secretly working on a book that summarizes the fundamental viewpoints of Scragged.